A Tale of Human Lives: The March for America

by

As many of you know, Jamie and I attended the 200,000 strong rally for immigration reform in Washington D.C. this past Sunday. I have not recounted the experience fully because that day was particularly exhausting, plus duties of school, etc. But here it is:

When we first arrived on the national mall at around 9 a.m., there was almost no one there. So we walked around with our signs for immigration reform held high. An indication of how the day would unfold took place when, going to the bathroom, we left our signs on the ground outside. When we exited, a Latino family was holding our signs, posing for a picture. They liked our signs and our presence; they told us: “Thank you for your support”, while wearing the biggest of smiles.

People trickled into the mall slowly at first. The great majority of the people then and throughout the rally were Latino; a couple of big groups arrived and began the chants of “Si, se puede”(Yes We Can), and “el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido” (The people, united, will never be defeated) The energy was palpable. The passion was as well.

The amount of people at the rally hovered around a modest amount until, around 1 p.m., gigantic groups of people from all over the nation came and kept on coming until the Mall was packed to its gills.

I cannot comment on the concrete percentage of children that were at the rally, but it seemed like they were ever-present: infants, toddlers, 10 year olds, teenagers. The whole gamut. Almost all Latino. If there is one thing that I gathered from the debate it was this: the issue of immigration reform is first and foremost one of humanity.

One can go on and on about the logical benefits of immigration reform or the illogical ones of increased enforcement and more restrictive immigration quotas. But to be hooked on the issue on an abstract level is to open the door to the  dangers of dehumanization.

At the rally, I saw a family with two cute little girls. They were chanting, “Si, se puede”. I cannot in good conscience decide  the fate of that young family because of an unsubstantiated policy for the good of the United States. My individual take on this issue is, it appears, not only non-existent amongst the majority of U.S. citizens, but unattainable as well. The noticeable lack white, European-ancestry U.S. citizens–the majority of the population–at the rally this Sunday is evidence of how sheltered the United States’ populous has become.

There are many white citizens that are for comprehensive immigration reform, but where were all of them this Sunday? I can’t speak for everyone, so I will relate the explanations I received from some of my friends. Succinctly, my friends, although for the idea, were not willing to sacrifice a day for the rally because the issue was not important enough to them. Unlike Latinos–many of whom are undocumented or have family members and friends who are undocumented–whites, at least superficially, do not have as much of a vested interest in the passing of  immigration reform.

I say superficially because for many who have not ventured out into what the real consequences of the current  immigration system are, the issue remains abstract, not tied to the unerasable image of a baby losing its father or mother forever. This lack of connection to the human aspect is, I surmise, attributable to most of white America. With this white silence, the vile, genocide-leading(by that I mean dehumanization is the key ingredient to inflicting horrors upon a group of people because of whatever reason) anti-immigrant movement becomes more influential and grinds any chance at progress to a halt.

The logic of what is written above is not exclusive to the immigration issue of the United States; it can be extrapolated across the globe and explain why atrocities against Humans are constantly committed to this day. If everyone in the privileged country of the U.S. was exposed, in-person, to what poverty is, then the task of sending a whole people back into it would not be so flippantly thrown around as the ONLY way to SAVE America.

The defensive reflex of insulating oneself to upsetting realities has, especially in the United States, suffocated the U.S.’government’s ability to address, in a clear-headed manner, what must be addressed: immigration from the impoverished lands of Latin America. This is all too evident from, as the rally showed, the apathetic absence of white Americans.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

48 Responses to “A Tale of Human Lives: The March for America”

  1. Señora López Says:

    Fantastic account of the march/rally. Your last 2 paragraphs said a mouthful!

  2. bjohns15 Says:

    Thanks Senora Lopez!

  3. cookie Says:

    SEIU Showed Itself a Pro At Sunday March in Silencing Debate — Mime’s Audio Is One Proof

    By Roy Beck, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 7:38 AM EDT – posted on NumbersUSA

    The Battle of the Mimes looks pretty silly in many ways. But beneath the makeup and balloons, the SEIU’s “silencing campaign” on Sunday showed a lot about the ability and willingness of one of the biggest money/muscle partners of the pro-amnesty forces to use well-orchestrated intimidation to keep debate from happening.

    Perhaps surprising was that the main intent was not so much to silence me but to silence their pro-amnesty marchers. Once the Park Police finally required that the marchers be given the right to speak to us, we could see why SEIU didn’t want them to be heard. Pretty radical stuff.

    The young woman/mime who brought the false charges against my body guard now acknowledges in an on-line audio interview that she was part of an elaborate effort to keep any conversation from happening.

    And that pretty much describes the pro-amnesty philosophy which generally considers name-calling to be the highest form of intellectual activity on the immigration issue — even in the mainstream large national entities such as the Huffington Post, Center for American Progress and the National Council of La Raza.

    This non-stop slandering, libeling, intimidating presence by the open-borders groups has become common nearly every place NumbersUSA appears now. The open-borders groups have an incredible fear of NumbersUSA’s grassroots mobilizing influence. They are expending large sums of foundation money that is targeted specifically at attacking us and some of our allies.

    But the difference when the open-borders agitators show up at events where I have been invited to speak is that I give them the floor or microphone and let them say their piece and ask their questions (make their accusations).

    OUR PRESENCE WAS ALWAYS QUIET, POLITE AND UNOBTRUSIVE — SEIU WANTED A COMMOTION

    On Sunday, however, they were not so gracious when I showed up at their party on the National Mall. Like a good guest, I had let the march organizers know in advance that I would be visiting. I also announced through various news media that I was discouraging anti-amnesty enthusiasts from doing any kind of counter-protest on the Mall because I felt the pro-amnesty forces should get their very expensive day of free speech without disruptions.

    Hilarious to anybody who has ever known me or the NumbersUSA style — or who watches even the videos taken by the pro-amnesty folks and posted on the pro-amnesty blogs — the claim is that the SEIU and Center for New Community heard I was coming and had to organize to prevent me from physically threatening the marchers and starting fights!

    I think you got the picture. Into a field of 60,000 to 100,000 pro-amnesty marchers — with no counter-protestors in sight anywhere — I walked with six of my colleagues. And the SEIU felt threatened.

    However, unlike when they attend my events, I had announced widely beforehand that we had no intention of disrupting anything and were just going to interview marchers willing to be interviewed.

    But the SEIU plan was to create incredible commotion every place I went — and then, of course, blame us for the commotion. As you can see from the videos, my conversations with marchers in all but one case had the audible level of a pin drop at that event.

    SEIU DROWNS OUT PRAYERS AND PREACHERS

    The SEIU and Center for New Community theatre was so intent on trying to provoke an outbreak that it succeeded in drowning out most of the homilies and prayers during the interfaith religious service that led off the event.

    I was standing perhaps 50 feet from the clerics just trying to listen to the worship service. This so enraged the march organizers that they incited scores of people around me to start explosive chants to accompany their whistle blowing so that virtually nobody in the front section could hear anything being said during the prayers right there in front of us.

    But as much as the SEIU didn’t want me to hear the religious leaders, it REALLY didn’t want me to hear voices from the overwhelmingly Latino crowd.

    As you saw in our live video feeds on Sunday and will see in short videos we will be posting, the SEIU and Center for New Community “silencers” totally bewildered one Latino marcher after another who sought to talk to us but were shouted and whistled down by the Silencers.

    MOST MARCHERS WERE QUITE HONEST ABOUT THEIR TRULY OPEN-BORDERS PREFERENCES

    SIEU responded with lawyers and thugs to try to stop us from talking with the marchers. Why?

    Because they knew what we were going to find — a truly open-borders philosophy that is repugnant to the vast majority of the American voters and a philosophy that is vehemently denied by the politicians pushing for more and more foreign workers in our economy.

    The Silencers succeeded in keeping us from hearing that message until they incited so much potential violence against us that the Park Police were forced to move us out of the area for our protection.

    Once across the street, the police ordered the mimes and their handlers to cease their intimidating, silencing tactics. Everywhere we had gone earlier in the day, the SEIU handlers stopped each person who started to talk to us and commanded them not to speak to us. When various of these Latino marchers persisted in talking to us, the SEIU Silencers (who all seemed to be White, interestingly) would incite the crowd to loud chants to drown out any conversation, and the balloon ladies would insert their white-gloved hands, white-coated mugs and omnipresent balloons into the faces of the Latino marchers. All a strange sight. But we ARE talking about mimes.

    Well, once the police ordered a stop to the SEIU intimidation of the marchers, we were inundated by people wanting to talk to us and debate us.

    And then, we discovered that the predominant sentiment was that it is wrong for the United States to have borders.

    It is wrong for the United States to limit the ability of anybody in the world from coming here to take a job. And it would be wrong for the government to give priority to the 25 million unemployed and forced-part-time American workers (including immigrants already here legally) over people here illegally.

    PARK POLICE MOVED US FROM RALLY AREA BECAUSE OF THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST US

    When I was first approached by the Police to leave the march area and move across the street into a virtually empty area that had been set up for counter-protestors who never showed up, I argued that I had done nothing to lose my free assembly rights to walk around the staging area.

    But Rosemary Jenks, our director of government relations and a lawyer, quickly learned from the police that the mimes brigade and their SEIU handlers had so stirred many of the marchers to a mob-like hysteria about our presence that the police had heard direct threats of violence against us and were intent on protecting our safety.

    By the way, some observers have wondered if there wasn’t a bit of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater throughout the event.

    When we were in the middle of the crowd (which appeared to be about 90% Latino), people around began directing the crowd’s attention to us and saying that “they hate Latinos” and “they are white supremacists.”

    The mimes themselves had been trained well in the art of disruptiveness to incite some kind of physical response back at them. This tactic has some parallel with torture techniques that don’t leave marks on the body. If you read through the open-borders blog sites, you will see some pretty clever writing ridiculing the idea that some small white women in greasepaint and surrounded by balloons could be anything but annoying. I be mistaken but I think some of the blogs are challenging my manhood that I could possibly have been intimidated by these little women. But I will tell you that hours of having whistles (I don’t care what shape or quality) in your ears is more than disorienting and is a great way to push a person to finally slug the whistler. That certainly was what they had hoped.

    Although we were plenty happy to pop balloons that were constantly shoved into our faces and into the camera lens, we did not give the angry and physical response that the march organizers had hoped to provoke. So, racial taunts were next used. Two of our friends who came to the march to assist me in case we encountered some lone wolf problem marcher were Black (well, one is actually Latino, Black and American Indian — but the Silencers crowd all assumed he was just Black). The people around the mime ladies shouted at them for being Black. Our Black colleagues were accused of being my slaves, of assisting the KKK, and other epithets to try to rattle them.

    The last thing that the Silencers — or apparently this giant SEIU union — seemed to care about are the unemployed. The very mention of the unemployed sent people into a rage. Certainly a common theme that we found among the marchers was that unemployed Americans just don’t have a good enough work ethic to deserve the jobs — or that the American way is that U.S. citizens shouldn’t have to do lower-skilled labor, that it is beneath them. And apparently any American who still seeks lower-skilled jobs is betraying the American dream.

    A FINAL EFFORT AT SILENCING WITH AN ASSAULT CHARGE

    When the SEIU efforts at Silencing finally failed and the police protected our right of free listening, the Silencers had one last trick in their bag. A mime filed a charge against one of my guards alleging an assault that had supposedly occured several hours earlier. Strange how that timing worked out, eh?

    On her on-line audio tape, she claims the presence of a knife, a complete fabrication. The poor park police had no choice but follow procedures, including a pat-down for the non-existant knife.

    The false charge trick was somewhat effective in that it tied up a lot of videotape from being webcast for some time.

    But once NumbersUSA was actually allowed to listen in on the opinions of marchers and for us to be the ears for average Americans deeply concerned about the unemployed of our communities, all the efforts at Silencing had really only succeeded in revealing a very ugly side to the amnesty movement.

    In the end, we realized that the Silencing was not aimed at keeping us quiet but at keeping the SEIU’s pro-amnesty colleagues — especially their own union members, I suspect — quiet.

  4. cookie Says:

    Might I invite you Bryan to the City-Data forum on illegal immigration to get a cross section of how Americans feels about illegal immigration both white, black and otherwise?

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration · Cached page

    • bjohns15 Says:

      First, I did not look at the City-Data forum. I am not surprised if it true that most Americans(those that have an opinion at least) are not for “illegal immigration”. But at the same time, most Americans are not aware that those that came here illegally, for the most part, had no legal way to immigrate to the U.S. The amount of times I have heard someone say “get to the back of the line”, indicates Americans’ lack of knowledge of the current immigration system.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        indicates Americans’ lack of knowledge of the current immigration system.

        Is it really a lack of knowledge? or is it merely the denial of facts? Approx. 40% came by way of legal visa and merely overstayed, the remaining 60% came by way of Entry Violation. Those that came by Entry Violation simply chose to ignore going to a consulate and applying for a visa, were denied by the consulate for whatever reason, have no passport whatsoever, etc.

        http://www.latinalista.net/palabrafinal/2010/03/three_mexican_guestworkers_find_doing_th.html

        The point is they do have a way to come legally, many simply choose not to for their own reasons.

  5. bjohns15 Says:

    Cookie,

    I can’t read the whole article, so I will give you my take on Roy Beck’s presence there.

    Yes, he had the free-speech right to be there and say his opinion. I would not recommend what the Mimes did; it enhanced the danger of the situation.

    Nonetheless, there were over 100,000 people there, many of whom undoubtedly have had family members deported, put into imm. detention, etc. Roy Beck’s position is to aggressively deport all “undocumented” and hope that those that aren’t reached return to their native country on their own.

    Cookie, Roy Beck is an enemy of many of the thousands who were at the rally. What the Mimes did was dangerous and irresponsible. What Roy Beck did was as well–his presence could have began violence, and with so many children around and that many people, someone could have been hurt. He should not have gone, not because he has no freedom of speech, but because of the public’s safety.

  6. cookie Says:

    So those adult marchers were so immature that they could get violent by a mere difference of opinion expressed civily and softly? Do pro-illegals worry about any children present when they protest at anti-illegal rallies? Who would be a fault then? The one merely expressing a difference of opinion or the immature idiot that can’t control his emotions? They would be the ones not considering the children around them.

    You are criticizing Roy Beck for “inciting” the pro-amnesty crowd, when in fact all Roy was doing was trying to talk to and interview some of those taking part in the march. He was not carrying any anti-illegal signs, or in any way being belligerant or inciteful. OTOH, you deliberately attempted to provoke anti-amnesty protesters a few weeks ago by walking into their midst displaying a pro-amnesty sign! You even admitted it to Liquid that he knew that he was inciting these people. You came very close to admitting that was your intention. You tried to get a violent response out of them so that you could blog about it and demonize the opposition as violent racists. Now you are criticizing Roy Beck for daring to appear at the pro-illegal march and ask questions?! Kind of hypocritical don’t you think?

    So, I ask you was it ok for you to deliberately attempt to provoke anti-amnesty protesters for the purpose of demonizing the pro-illegal side but it’s not ok for Roy Beck to peacefully and civilly exercise his first amendment rights??!!!! Well do tell! You need to understand that we aren’t living in a Socialist/Communist nation–YET; although, with another amnesty that will be all but assured as the good little Progressive you are surely understands.

  7. cookie Says:

    If I want tickets to a concert and they are sold out, I cannot just crash into the concert anyhow. If I am apprehended, I cannot get off the hook by saying that I was “forced” to enter without tickets because there were no tickets available! Yeah, sure…that would work!

    People like you Bryan just seem to have no clue as to why there are immigration laws! Immigration laws exist expressly to limit the number of immigrants to a level which do not overwhelm the nation on many different levels. You just don’t get that!

    What you want is “controlled” open borders (with Latin America only, though). IOW, any Latin American who wants to come here, provided they have no criminal background, should be able to. For all practical purposes, this is open borders. The fact that this places American citizens in direct competition for jobs with hordes of immigrants from Latin America does not phase you not one iota. Not only would the lower uneducated classes be displacing American workers, but also the more educated would be coming here and displacing our college educated Americans–much like the H1-b workers from India and such places are. What is wrong with your thinking?

    I’d like to see an answer from you on why you value your own fellow Americans so much less than foreign nationals. I mean, I know the answer (you’re a xenophile) but I’d like to see you explain it yourself. It’s one thing to try to hide behind the veil of “compassion” for those already here, but it’s another thing to want to put millions of Americans in direct competition with the whole of Latin American hordes. There is no way to justify this.

  8. bjohns15 Says:

    Oh cookie, you are so angry; i don’t know where its source is.

    I said Roy beck should have the right to freedom of speech; i never said otherwise. The difference between what I did and what Roy Beck did is quite clear: I counter protested about 15 tea partiers. Roy Beck went amongst 100s of thousands. What I did was, i admit, dangerous. But the only person I put at risk was myself. Also, when i first decided to counter-protest the tea partiers, it was not only for incitementer.In fact, I only realized how bat-shit crazy they were after I counter-protested. I did not like their message. Hence, I got a sign with the opposite message, to counter their message

    I will repeat again, he should have had the right to free speech. And your comments indicate a lack of understanding of what my position is on immigration.

  9. bjohns15 Says:

    Liquid Reigns:

    “Those that came by Entry Violation simply chose to ignore going to a consulate and applying for a visa, were denied by the consulate for whatever reason, have no passport whatsoever, etc.”

    I am not going to cite to the specific INA, but I am fairly sure that those that came here on an entry violation cannot go to a consulate and apply for a visa. If I am wrong, please supply me with the appropriate statute.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Those that came by way of entry violation would have had to go to a consulate in their country of origin prior to coming here. Maybe some did and were turned down, maybe others never did and came anyway.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        On another blog a while ago, another reader and I got into an argument on this same issue and we put up all the visas that are available. It is safe to say that, out of the majority of those that come here on an entry violation, there is no visa available. If you are curious on the available visas, go to dept. of state, or uscis websites.

        My position is this: If permanent(not guest worker program) legal immigration for those in Latin America is not increased, entry violations will continue and continue, despite what enforcement measures are taken. Will this stem entry violations? I am not sure, but I believe it has to be seriously addressed.

        Unfortunately, the underlying cause for entry violations is not seriously considered(i.e. drug consumption here preventing Mexico, Cent. Am., from developing and decreasing poverty).

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        It is safe to say that, out of the majority of those that come here on an entry violation, there is no visa available.

        And here the H-2A has unlimited numbers, no cap. H-2B does have a cap. TN (Specific to only Mexico and Canada) goes hardly used. To include the application of all other immigrant visas that can be applied for. Applied for being the key word. There are many reasons for not issuing the visa, which neither you or me have control over. EXAMPLE: I have a passport, I can travel outside of the USA, it is the receiving port of entry (receiving country) that can deny me as well for any reason they so choose. Or, if I go to our consulate with out a passport and ask for permission to travel outside the USA, I too will be denied travel simply due to not having a passport. Does that give me a reason to Illegally enter the country I desire to go to because I was denied either entry at the port (having a passport and being let out of the USA) or illegally entering the country simply from being denied to leave my country (no passport)? There are many reasons, as you can now see, as to why some are not allowed to leave their country, why some can still be denied entry at a port of entry. There are rules in place for reasons, if those rules are violated, why should they be given reprieve from those rules? I gave you an article from Marisa that shows they can come legally, yet they choose to pay a coyote thousands of dollars instead, knowing full well that they can be caught and that money lost. Their choices are what put them into the situations they are in, nothing more.

        My position is this: If permanent(not guest worker program) legal immigration for those in Latin America is not increased, entry violations will continue and continue, despite what enforcement measures are taken.

        My position, and that of Cookies, is that if our laws already allow for an unlimited number of work visas (H-2A) to be allowed, why is it that our AG companies are not utilizing that. Your assumption is that all of Latin America wants to come here to stay permanently, which some may want to do, while others may not. Maybe a non-immigrant visa can be allowed to have a change of status if applied for and specific conditions were met, but this would take some consideration and debate.

        Unfortunately, the underlying cause for entry violations is not seriously considered(i.e. drug consumption here preventing Mexico, Cent. Am., from developing and decreasing poverty).

        This may be but one portion of the underlying cause, but it is by no means the only underlying one. The failure of Foreign Governments to develop and decrease poverty in their countries is again something we can agree upon, the question is how do we get those Governments to do what needs to be done?

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Yes,

        ” Maybe a non-immigrant visa can be allowed to have a change of status if applied for and specific conditions were met, but this would take some consideration and debate.

        Yes, something like this needs to be done in conjunction with permanent offers. Also, the H2-A is only for agriculture.

        I have never said individuals are entitled to come here without authorization; rather, I try to understand and state the motivation. A lot of the debate, at least from cookie-types, focuses on the undocumented as “lawbreakers, etc, etc”, like we, as American citizens, are morally superior to them. The entry without authorization is not a crime that consists of a moral element. If you or I were in their position(which we have not been and likely cannot enter their perspective), we may very well broke the United States immigration laws as well. I stand by the basic premise that legal immigration must come with permanent offers, as well as what you said before, a temp with option to adjust. Otherwise, the status quo will be guaranteed to continue.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Also, the H2-A is only for agriculture.

        I know the H-2A is specifically for Agriculture, I pointed that out above with AG after it. However the article I gave you from Marisa was an H-2B article with non-immigrants from Mexico.

        I try to understand and state the motivation.

        But you are only stating maybe one motivating factor, this leads to the confusion, just look above.

        A lot of the debate, at least from cookie-types, focuses on the undocumented as “lawbreakers, etc, etc”, like we, as American citizens, are morally superior to them.

        I would argue that is simply your interpretation of it. To those of us it is not a Moral Superiority argument, it is an ethical argument. People make choices, the choices to come here without authorization were their choices and theirs alone. We are all responsible for our own actions, they should be held responsible for their actions as well.

        If you or I were in their position(which we have not been and likely cannot enter their perspective), we may very well broke the United States immigration laws as well.

        You may make the choice to violate the laws of a sovereign nation, for what ever reason, I may even as well, but for me, my morals and ethics would keep me from doing it. Maybe it has to do with how we were brought up and the paths we took in life, I am ex-military as were my forefathers.

        Otherwise, the status quo will be guaranteed to continue.

        I see it as even if we do everything we can to prevent it, it will always continue simply due to the economic difference in wages and the fact that we are a nation of handouts, sub-sidies, and welfare.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Were you born in the United States, Liquid?

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Were you born in the United States, Liquid?

        San Antonio, TX

      • bjohns15 Says:

        So as a a person that obtained their U.S. citizenship through birth, any comment on the “lawbreaking illegals” from latin america cannot be made. It’s impossible for you or I to truly understand what they did because we lack perspective. Same goes for Cookie.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        More rhetoric and a typical response, Bryan. There are numerous things that are known and then there are some assumptions, it still does not give them the right to cross an international boundary without authorization. Even the United Nations agrees with me on that.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Liquid, I agree that it does not give them the right. I am just saying that as American-born citizens, we can say that they don’t have the right to do it, but we should refrain from saying that if we were in their position, we would not do the same thing.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        It is safe to say that, out of the majority of those that come here on an entry violation, there is no visa available.

        The visa must be obtained in their country of origin, once here there is no easy way for them to get a change of status which is what i think you are trying to get at. There should be no “change of status” for them, however I would agree in CIR that they can apply for an H-2A or special created visa that is a non-immigrant visa allowing them 6 – 10 months to get their things together and leave the country with no penalties on returning if they come the correct way in the future.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        To continue my previous point: In 2006, a total of 1,266,264 immigrants became legal permanent residents of the United States, up from 601,516 in 1987, 849,807 in 2000, and 1,122,373 in 2005.[44] The top twelve migrant-sending countries in 2006, by country of birth, were Mexico (173,753), People’s Republic of China (87,345), Philippines (74,607), India (61,369), Cuba (45,614), Colombia (43,151), Dominican Republic (38,069), El Salvador (31,783), Vietnam (30,695), Jamaica (24,976), South Korea (24,386), Guatemala (24,146), Other countries – 606,370.[45]

        C. and S. American countries do make a strong showing as to the total of Latino’s allowed into the USA yearly already.

  10. cookie Says:

    I’m angry just because I called you on your hypocricy? Seems like you are the angry one to make a statement like that. I merely expressed the truth and as usual your side can’t handle the truth so you resort to words like “angry, hater”, etc. I know, we anti’s have all been down this road before.

    No, there is no difference in Beck counterprostesting or just interviewing those willing to talk from the other side and your right to freedom of speech also. In fact what he did was a lot more civil then what you did and I pointed that out to you. What difference does it make what the size of the crowd was at the march and the one you protested at?

    Mature adults will either allow the other side to speak or they can just ignore them. What you are indicating is that these marchers didn’t have control of their emotions enough to act in a mature way and yet because there were children there that they wouldn’t be to blame for behaving violently in front of their own children? Talk about passing the buck and not taking responsibility for one’s own actions!

  11. cookie Says:

    If there is no line for potential immigrants to get in because we have reached our needed quotas for the low skilled, less educated you are advocating that they crash the gates anyway? You do realize that our immigration laws and policies are in place to protect the American people, don’t you? I don’t understand how you can advocate for foreigners to violate our immigration laws because of THEIR needs.

  12. cookie Says:

    But you are advocating for them to be able stay after crashing the gates so it is the same thing. Why should we favor Latin Americans? They are already only second to Asians for legal immigration. I thought we were supposed to be about diversity. How do we remain a diverse country if illegal aliens from mostly south of our border keep coming here illegally and then you advocate for them to be able to remain here?

    So we are supposed to raise our quotas for low sikilled, less educated Latinos whether we need them or not just because more want to come here? Surely you jest!

    Why aren’t you down in Mexico fighting for reform there? How is Mexico ever going to get its act together and provide jobs for their own people if we continue to be the escape valve for their poor?

  13. cookie Says:

    “I say superficially because for many who have not ventured out into what the real consequences of the current immigration system are, the issue remains abstract, not tied to the unerasable image of a baby losing its father or mother forever. This lack of connection to the human aspect is, I surmise, attributable to most of white America. With this white silence, the vile, genocide-leading(by that I mean dehumanization is the key ingredient to inflicting horrors upon a group of people because of whatever reason) anti-immigrant movement becomes more influential and grinds any chance at progress to a halt.”

    How does a baby lose its father or mother forever? If the parents are deported they can and should take their children with them. The human aspect of this? What is inhumane about a country having immigration policies that are “humane” to its own citizens? Since when is having soveirgn borders, limiting immigration that is in the best interets of the host country, inhumane? I think it very humane to secure our borders so that terrorists and criminals can’t enter either. Is that inhumane?

    White silence? Why are you making the objection to illegal immigration a race issue? You are not aware that there are white, black, asian and even latino citizens in this country that object to this illegal invasion? There is no genocide going on of immigrants either legal or illegal. What are you talking about? Why is it dehumanizing to expect immigrants to follow our laws? Enforcing our immigration laws is inflicting horror? What anti-“immigrant” movement is there? Are you blurring the lines between legal and illegal? That is another tactic that the pro-illegals use to try and gain sympathy for immigration laws breakers. It is so blatantly dishonest.

    I don’t know what has brought you to this point as an American citizen but you really need to do some real soul searching as to why you are so enamoured with these mostly latino invaders and their culture that you have turned into a xenophile and turned your back on your own country’s citizens, country and its laws.

  14. cookie Says:

    What you need to do is to search your soul and conscience about is what has brought you to this point. I don’t know if you have a soul or not but you obviously are lacking in common sense and loyalty to your own country and its citizens.

    I notice that all of your arguments are anecdotal. They are all “personalized”–such as bringing up the family with the two cute little girls. You are not capable of making one logical argument. It is all based on emotion. Unfortunately, where the future of this nation is at stake and the future of our own children and grandchildren, we cannot afford such emotionality. I am sorry, but these people knew full well that they were here in defiance of our immigration laws and that the penalty for such is deportation. Now, we’re not sending these people off to “death camps.” We want to repatriate them to the nations to which they hold allegiance and love so much. That’s it. Enough of the dramatics by the pro-illegals. These illegals had a good run; some of them worked the system for close to 20 years. I’d say they did pretty good for themselves. Now it’s time to pay the piper and return home. As far as their U.S. born children go, if their parents are Mexican, the children have dual citizenship–meaning they are just as much citizens of Mexico as they are of the U.S. Let Mexico educate these children and provide for them. If they still want to come here when they are 18, let them. In the meantime, the 14th amendment really needs to be reinterpreted to reflect its original intent in order to eliminate this flagrant abuse.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      I made a preface in the article to what i was writing:

      “One can go on and on about the logical benefits of immigration reform or the illogical ones of increased enforcement and more restrictive immigration quotas.”

      This article was purposely crafted to reflect only the human aspect. If you have read past posts of mine on Immigration(which you probably have not), you would see that I often put a heavy emphasis on factually based arguments. Furthermore, for the purpose of entertaining reading, I purposefully write with a particular style. It is not meant to be an academic empirical study.

      Do you have a blog, cookie, or do you just like to go around criticizing others’ blogs?

  15. cookie Says:

    No, I don’t have a blog of my own. I wasn’t criticizing your blog I merely disagree with you on your immigration views.

    I remain adamant about my illegal immigration views because it is so devastating to our country and my fellow citizens. I am also about the rule of law and the right for any country to limit their immigration laws and to enforce them against illegal entry.

    I didn’t say that all illegals are law breakers other than illegally entering our country. It isn’t being morally superior to expect other humans to follow our laws just as I do and most Americans do. I disagree that this isn’t a moral issue because it is! When someone knowingly and willingly violates laws that are based on the general welfare of the majority it is indeed a moral issue. Sneaking, lying, and cheating are also moral issues and many of these illegals if not most of them commit all of the above.

    No, I would not do what they do. I would stay in my own country and try to fix it. Cowards run and take the easy way out.

  16. cookie Says:

    What??? What does my birth in this country have to do with my views on illegal immigration? Illegal immigration is against the law. As an American citizen I respect our laws and so should foreigners.

    Understandiing why they jump our borders is one thing but excusing them for doing it is quite another.

  17. cookie Says:

    Why should we refrain from saying that if we were in their position we wouldn’t do the same thing? I wouldn’t do it so am I supposed to lie about it or tell the truth as to what I would or wouldn’t do personally? I don’t get your remark at all!

  18. cookie Says:

    Why are my posts replying to yours appearing above your initial post?

  19. cookie Says:

    Again, I ask Byran. Why should we refrain from saying that we wouldn’t violate another country’s immigration laws?

  20. cookie Says:

    You still haven’t answered my question, Bryan. Why should I refrain from saying I wouldn’t violate another country’s immigration laws? I know my self and I would not do that under any circumstances.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Because you are not in their shoes. You, like I, are an american born citizen. If you were born, say, in Mexico, you cannot say with certainty that you would not violate another country’s immigration laws.

  21. cookie Says:

    WHY, BRYAN???

    • bjohns15 Says:

      I already answered your question, above. WordPress (the platform from which I blog) has a reply option, so that the replies come immediately after a comment, not necessarily at the bottom of the whole comment section. Get it?

  22. cookie Says:

    WHY, BRYAN???

  23. cookie Says:

    Why are my recent posts appearing above old posts, Bryan? Why won’t you answer that question?

  24. cookie Says:

    Bryan, I know what I would and wouldn’t do if I were in there shoes. For one thing I would consider the negative affect I would have on the citizens who’s country I was breaking into. If it were just me doing it the impact would probably not be negative but these people are coming by the millions and already know by hearsay how our citizens are stuggling to support them through our taxes and that they are undercutting us and stealing our jobs in the employment area.

    The mere thought of me entering another country illegally just so I could obtain citizenship for my unborn child and knowing full well that the citizens of that country would have to pay for that birth and all kinds of welfare for the kid till they are 18, would morally turn me off from doing it. It is nothing but pure selfishness and immortality on their part and how any loyal American can support this is beyond my understanding. How do you expect us to look favorably on such people who don’t have any respect for our laws or our citizens and lack the courage to fix their own country? More to the question, why do you?

    • bjohns15 Says:

      I cannot answer you if you will not listen to what I said originally. I see no point to further this particular discussion if you ignore the substance of what I write.

  25. Evelyn Says:

    Lie Down with Dogs
    NumbersUSA Founder Roy Beck, Has Little-Known Past

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/spring/lie-down-with-dogs

    • bjohns15 Says:

      This does not surprise me in the least, though I have my qualms about the veracity of SPLC. Case in point: I live in Suffolk County; they did a report on suffolk county that I found to be lacking in overall integrity. In other words, they cherry-picked things to bolster their argument to a point where they lost some accuracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: